View this case and other resources at:
Citation. Cims. Arbitration under Special Agreement of August 18, 1910, 1921, Nielsen Rep. 526. 6. U.N.R.I.A.A. 85.
Brief Fact Summary. According to the United States (P), the interpretation given to the Treaty of London of 1818 by the Canadian government was not correct.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. The determinations, from an international perspective of how the provisions of a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts are the duties of an international tribunal.
Issue. Is it the duty of an international tribunal to determine, from an international perspective, how he provisions of a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts?
Held. Yes. The determination, from an international perspective, of how the provisions of a treaty are to be interpreted and applied to the facts is the duties of an international tribunal. The unilateral interpretation of a bilateral contract by one party is not binding on the other party. The fact that the international was given by legislative or judicial authority does not make it enforceable on the other party.
Discussion. The Tribunal found that the Canadian (D) did not err in its interpretation. Some courts have held that unilateral interpretations of treaties have only an advisory effect. Others opine that such interpretations are to be seen as amendments to the treaty.